Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center - Brinkerhttps://las-elc.org/tags/brinker
enDecision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.https://las-elc.org/news/decision-in-kirby-v-immoos-fire-protection-inc
<div class="field field-name-title-field field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Decision in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Workers Not Subject to Attorneys Fees in Claims Alleging Meal and Rest Period Violations</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>On April 30, 2012, the California Supreme Court decided whether workers can recover or be subject to awards of attorneys fees when making meal and rest period claims.</p><p>The Court in <em>Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.</em> held that, generally, claims alleging meal and rest period violations under Labor Code section 226.7 are not subject to one-way or two-way fee shifting provisions. “In line with its analysis in Brinker, the Court’s decision in Kirby protects low-wage workers’ rights to pursue section 226.7 meal and rest break claims without fear of exposure to exorbitant amount of attorney’s fees,” said Fernando Flores, Director of Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center’s WageHELP Program.</p><p><!--break--></p><p>The key statutes in contention were Labor Code section 1194 (which only allows workers to recover attorney’s fees) and Labor Code section 218.5 (which allows either party to recover attorney’s fees). The Court ruled that the legislature did not intend either of these attorney’s fees provisions apply to section 226.7 claims and as result “the default American rule that each side must cover its own attorney’s fees” will apply. </p><p><a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S185827.pdf" rel="nofollow">Download the full decision.</a></p><p>The Court examined the plain meaning and legislative history of each statute. In terms of section 218.5, the Court emphasized that the legislature gave no indication that the two-way fee shifting provisions in 218.5 apply to meal and rest period claims. It clarified that section 226.7 meal and rest period protections have “long been viewed as part of the remedial worker protection framework,” (citing <em>Murphy v. Kenneth Cole</em>) and that section 226.7 claims are not within the purview of the "nonpayment of wages” language in section 218.5. Of particular importance, the Court noted that “the legislature could reasonably have concluded that meritorious section 226.7 claims may be deterred if workers, especially low-wage workers, had to weigh the value of an ‘additional hour pay’ remedy if their claims succeed against the risk of liability for a significant fee award if their claims fail.” The Court did not decide the question of whether a law suit is shielded from attorney’s fees under section 218.5 by including minimum or overtime wage claims. This issue is likely to be decided in future cases. </p><p>In this case, Anthony Kirby and Rick Leech, Jr. (Kirby collectively) were two former employees <em>of Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.</em> (IFP) who sued the company for violations of the Labor Code (including failure to pay overtime, waiting time penalties, payroll violations, rest period violations, and contract claims) and California’s unfair competition law.</p></div></div></div>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:56:41 +0000cHerrera44 at https://las-elc.orghttps://las-elc.org/news/decision-in-kirby-v-immoos-fire-protection-inc#commentsDecision in Brinker v. Superior Court: Employers May Not Interfere with Workers’ Right to Meal Breakshttps://las-elc.org/news/decision-in-brinker-v-superior-court-employers-may-not-interfere-with-workers-right-to-meal
<div class="field field-name-field-news-category-select field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Ruling</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-title-field field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Decision in Brinker v. Superior Court: Employers May Not Interfere with Workers’ Right to Meal Breaks</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single">April 12, 2012</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in <cite>Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court</cite>, clarifying an employer’s obligations to provide hourly—or non-exempt—workers meal and rest periods.</p><p>On the central question of what it means to provide meal periods, the <cite>Brinker</cite> decision concluded that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desires, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.” The Court reasoned that requiring an employer to police its workers’ breaks would contradict the principle that the employer relinquishes all control during breaks. The Court clarified further than an employer cannot impede breaks by pressuring workers against taking breaks, create incentives to forego breaks, or encourage skipping breaks. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle that California’s workers are “entitled to uninterrupted half-hour [meal] periods in which they are relieved of any duty or employer control and are free to come and go as they please.”</p><p>In plain words, while an employer is not required to prohibit work during a meal period, it is the employer’s responsibility to relieve its employees of all duty so as to allow them the opportunity to take a meaningful break—an uninterrupted 30 minutes to do whatever the worker chooses.</p><p>The <cite>Brinker</cite> case involves a large class of restaurant workers who allegedly missed meal periods, missed rest periods, and worked off-the-clock.</p><p>“The decision in <cite>Brinker Restaurants v. Superior Court</cite> confirms that workers have a right to uninterrupted 30 minute meal breaks.” said Fernando Flores, Director of the Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center’s, WageHELP Program. “Additionally, the Brinker decision recognizes that employers cannot undermine workplace policies providing meal breaks nor can they interfere with, impede, or discourage workers from taking their breaks.”</p><p><a href="/docs/cases/Brinker_CA_Supreme_Court_opinion.2012.04.12.pdf" rel="external" title="decision will open in a new tab or window">See the full text of the decision</a>.</p><p>If you have questions about how this law may affect you, please contact our Workers’ Right Clinic at 415-864-8208 or toll-free at 866-864-8208.</p><p>Find out about more about our <a href="/wage-protection-program" rel="external" title="page will open in a new tab or window">Wage and Hour Program</a>. We also provide free <a href="/fact-sheets" rel="external" title="page will open in a new tab or window">fact sheets</a> on Employment Law.</p></div></div></div>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:21:21 +0000Anonymous26 at https://las-elc.orghttps://las-elc.org/news/decision-in-brinker-v-superior-court-employers-may-not-interfere-with-workers-right-to-meal#comments